Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5355 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
03-04-2022
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
F
Assessment Year
2015-2016
Appeal Filed On
06-03-2019
Judgement Text
Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2016/Del/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Raghukul Trading Pvt. Ltd, Ad-196, Sector-63, Noida PAN: AABCR2770G Vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 108/Del/2019 (In ITA No. 2016/Del/2019) DCIT, Circle-2, Ghaziabad Vs. Raghukul Trading Pvt. Ltd, Ad-196, Sector-63, Noida PAN: AABCR2770G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : ShriSatyajeetGoyal, Ld. Adv Revenue by: ShriVipulKashyap, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04/04/2022 Date of pronouncement 04/04/2022 O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J. M.: 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee whereas, the Cross objection by the Revenue Department against the order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-I, Noida (in short „Ld. Commissioner‟) u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟) whereby, the Ld. Commissioner upheld the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Page | 2 2. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The only issue raised by the Assessee before us relates to affirmation of disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A of the Act, by the Ld. Commissioner. It appears from the impugned order that though the Assessee vide letter dated 19.09.2018 placed the necessary documents on record before the Ld. Commissioner however, failed to appear in the appellate proceeding and consequently the Ld. Commissioner decided the issue u/s 14A of the Act against the Assessee on the ground that the Assessee did not bring anything on record in order to establish its claim. 2.1 The claim of the revenue department by way of cross objection is that because Assessment Order has been passed by the AO situated at Ghaziabad, therefore the appeal should have been decided by Ld. CIT(A) Ghaziabad but not by the Ld. Commissioner, Noida who lacks jurisdiction. 2.2 Considering the above stated peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in context of rival claims of the parties, for the just decision of the case and in the interest of justice, parties agreed to and even otherwise we deem it appropriate to remand the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) having jurisdiction of this case for decision afresh, suffice to say while affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, hence, ordered accordingly. Page | 3 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee and Cross objection filed by the Revenue Department stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on /04/2022. -Sd/- -Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (N.K. CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 04/04/2022 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi
